[geeks] Sun Fire V120 Server -vs- Apple Xserve

[alex j avriette]

>> its a piss poor server os. the processor i've found is pretty stellar 
>> at
>> crunching the database stuff i do for work, and i like their flavor of
>> apache.
>
> You see I would say the exact opposite (we have a client running G4
> towers with OS X (recently upgraded to 10.1.4, IIRC) for all their
> database servers and web servers (they push 2-3 GB of web traffic per
> day).  Darwin makes a very good server platform, especially for
> applicatoins such as web servers.  It also does a damn good job of
> making use of multiple processors.

i can tell i'm getting trolled here, but i cant resist.

darwin ne osx. first and foremost. i will agree that darwin is good at 
smp. the reason it is not useful as a server platform is its extreme 
lack of any remote control abilities. want to add a user at the command 
line? try this:

http://www.afp548.com/Questions/20020306.html

how about add a machine to your hostfile? or changing your nameserver? 
or what about configuring mountpoints and sharepoints? osx is just 
pathetic in these endeavours. it expects tool to be sitting there 
clicking away at its (purdy) crufty little interface. that, man, just 
makes my ass twitch in a not so good way. that having been said, if you 
have a paid monkey in your datacenter to "click the lock to make 
changes," i'm sure its a fine server os.

but for critical applications, no, i'm going with solaris.

> We and they really like OS X as a server platform, especially for
> clients who for the most part manage their own servers, and the new
> support in 10.1.5 the support for a headless server is even better.

i could be snide and say things like "well you clearly arent doing 
anything serious or critical with it," but the irony of two accused 
trolls trolling eachother kind of makes me think it would be a bad idea.

> However we really don't like their "flavour" of apache -- but use it
> anyway because in a couple of instances the ready-integrated features
> make things simpler (and of course upgrades are simpler that way too).

my beef isnt with their version of apache (the current version anyways, 
the first version they distributed literally had GET removed from the 
source, which sucked ass), but rather their configs. the configs are 
okay until you attempt to use multiple features in which case they are 
mutually incompatible. i dislike that they have not produced a "security 
update" for the OS based on the apache DOS hole recently spotted (and in 
fact remote www exploit in some OS's).

alex